It is in my opinion a natural cycle, however the imbalance of energy is whats concerning as we live here and have no other choice but to watch events
unfold and try and piece the puzzles together.

There seems to be no question as to global warming. Its real!

Man is obvioisly not making things better.... Thats evident!

There is also no debate about the climate changing. We are all globally experiencing it.

What IS in question is what are the factors involved, can we change it, and what will happen next?

We know there is more carbon, so it will indeed heat up when its on the rise.

We know ice caps are melting and the jet stream is waaay off.

We know solar maximum is ramping up, however we have yet to see it in action. Because we are in a " system", what does this mean for our solar max?
Time will tell.

The real immediate danger, and I think you brought this up before MamaJ, is the proximity of these million/billions cubic meters of potential fresh
water to the Gulf Stream. The slowing or stopping of the Gulf Stream has heralded in most past ice ages - and it can happen in one season.

To me that link is BS. We have MAJOR players like Dr. Gray the hurricane expert saying they disagreed with the IPCC and they just shut him and the
others down in the national media. People doing research that MIGHT contradict these 'sceintist' working an agenda have been fired by their Uni's.
"Something is rotten in Denmark" and elsewhere when it comes to these so called climate scientist who use models that I know personally fail if over
two days out, period. IF YOU don't believe just start writing down the data from the 5 day forecast in your area and see how often it is more than 3
degrees off. Those are the same type of models available to all meteorologists and that is just the simple plain truth! After all 4 degrees is less
than the forecast of between 1 and 2 degrees increase in the Earth's average temps down the road that the so called man made global warming is
supposed to cause. YES we need LESS pollution, NO we can't affect the climate so much it will kill us. Either the Earth will kick in an Ice age or a
Sauna, that is the geological record. We happen to be way cooler than the warmest period in our history and warmer than our coolest period. It is
simple math and statistics that should be the cornerstone of this discussion not 'gut' feelings about a proven UNTRUSTWORTHY over any period of time
set of models.

Bottom line is the climate swings are natural. There is very little man can do to stop the ice ages or the warming periods until we reach a level 2
civilization (per Dr Michiu Kaku's theory about how greater civ's have greater tech allowing them to eventually control the power of a sun).Besides
there is no doubt, it WAS certainly warmer during the reign of Rome than it is now and even warmer than that several times over the millennia. They
grew grapes in England then and it is much too cold a climate now. PLUS if you live within 20 degrees of either pole, you will be able to grow more
food than any time in modern history. It has to be better warm than cold for most all plants and animals. It is hard to till frozen tundra like
ground.

Here is a follow up article to the Greenland ice sheet SURFACE melting, with some markedly different before and after pics from one of the main
settlements there, from May this year and July:

Richard Forster, a University of Utah professor, said that water rises every year, but he have never before observed it at this level of
discharge. The melting event was also about two weeks prior to the normal seasonal peak. He noticed that it was most likely due to melt on the ice
sheet – rather than an ice-dammed lake bursting or glacial lake drainage – as the high discharge was maintained for so long.

Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE
Here is a follow up article to the Greenland ice sheet SURFACE melting, with some markedly different before and after pics from one of the main
settlements there, from May this year and July:

Richard Forster, a University of Utah professor, said that water rises every year, but he have never before observed it at this level of
discharge. The melting event was also about two weeks prior to the normal seasonal peak. He noticed that it was most likely due to melt on the ice
sheet – rather than an ice-dammed lake bursting or glacial lake drainage – as the high discharge was maintained for so long.

Regardless of what has happened with the ice. I still contend it is absolutely being driven by the electromagnetic affect of our Sun that is
unprecedented in our recorded history. Mars, Jupiter, Saturn and the other objects like moons of Saturn are showing signs of warming too. Earthquakes
and volcano's are more active today than in the earliest part of this century. We are just cosmic dust even collectively compared to the mass of the
earth. We can control rainfall in isolated incidents but not overall climate. People have talked back and forth about these things but the global
warmers want to call skeptics deniers when we are only skeptical about the mechanism and the money being earned by people who are absolute liars or
hypocrites. Al Gore does come to mind he worked at MTSU while the Hydrogen car was winning award after award and no industry in the US will build any.
Japan is doing it now. China will drive tanks built using the tech and we get hosed by taxes on gas and heating oil. THIS IS A JOKE ON THE US!!!
Magnetic motors and fancy flywheels await and somebody is holding it back. Hmmmm who stands to profit but the powers in place who wish to push us to
make them richer and have more control of mankind? Don't be fooled by swings in the Earths behavior and think some man, already wealthy wants to
brainwash you to help them with their agenda. PERIOD!

Your thread title explicitly implies 97% of the 'ice sheet surface' melted in July, leading the reader to assume there is only 3% left so we can all
say 'OMGZ!1! global warming'.

What actually happened is that there was melting over 97% of the surface area. That's totally different.

Your thread title should be 'Melting over 97% of Greenland's surface' not '97% of Greenland's ice sheet surface melted' when it didn't actually
happen.

You said I said "97% of the ice sheet melted in my title", I showed you how incredibly wrong your statement was. The rest is semantics, which I'm
not going to waste my time debating, I just used my title directly from the original article and had no ulterior motive behind it, especially when you
look at my first comments about the thickness of the ice sheet trying to put this event into context.

Originally posted by nixie_nox
That has been debunked by Carnegie Mellon that found that the change in cosmic rays only affect less than 30% of particles, and then, most of those
particles are not big enough to affect clouds.

Are you one of those people that discounts all evidence that doesn't support your presupposition and supports lone evidence that does?

This has not been debunked. It was released in 2009 and since then a link has been found. I won't do your home-work for you - go Google it. I
doubt you'll believe it since clearly the sun doesn't play a role in the heating of the Earth and its all man-made.

bah - tired of you people...

wait wait wait
I tell you that science has already disproven that little tidbit with a study by a top university, and you accuse me of discounting evidence?

You skeptics are getting as bad as the religious zealots.

Since you can't understand that the Sun isn't emotional and pretty stable, and that our atmosphere protects us when it isn't, I will try to help
you with your 2nd grade science.

The basic problem with the hypothesis is that solar variations probably change new particle formation rates by less than 30 percent in the
atmosphere. Also, these particles are extremely small and need to grow before they can affect clouds. Most do not survive to do so," Adams said.

The magnetic pole is accelerating it's shift and the magnetosphere is itself weakening, and the different atomospheric layers are becoming more
charged - there is no dispute on this, some easily observable anecdotal evidence is Aurora's in summer when they usually only occur in winter, and
noctilucent clouds which used to be a rare event only in the artic which are being seen everywhere around the world now - events that have a direct
and provable link to the magnetosphere and Sun activity and nothing to do with man-made activity except that which causes ozone depletion - which was
reversed years ago.

At the beginning of this video the strange increasing occurrence of noctilucent clouds is discussed:

lol i think you'll find the 1st light bulbs from about 100yrs ago are still working too - they deliberately make them with the thinnest pieces of
metal filament so we have to keep buying them. Other wise the business would have gone bankrupt decades ago - just look at the hula craze of the
1970's almost everybody on the planet bought one but still most companies making them made a loss as they thought it would last forever - perpetual
growth model shown for the folly it is.

Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE
I don't always believe scientists over the common man, but in this case I think science trumps ignorance.

That depends who's science your using.

Are you aware of the THIRTY THOUSAND scientists who all said global warming is a deception?

Really?? Which scientists?

Are you aware that the the atmosphere used to have MANY times more co2 than it does now?

Really? How much is "Many"?

If you are going to try to debunk scientific data, try to sound more scientific.

And this is a simple way of looking at CO2.

The CO2 that is registered is an isotope, there are several of them. The CO2 burned from fossibl fuels is a different isotope than those in the
atmosphere.

So when the CO2 from fossil fuels is mixed with atmosphereic CO2, the composition of the atmospheric CO2 is changed. Hence, how they know the carbon
is from burning fossil fuels.

In tree ring records and ice core samples, never has the atmospheric Co2 been so low in thousands and thousands of years, And the rise of fossil fuel
CO2 isotope has risen in the last....150, or the start of the industrial revolution.And change of atmospheric CO2 isotope has never been more than
.03%, five times less than what we have seen in the past 150 years.

I am glad we could clear that up.

Are you aware of how the planet WILL respond if it warms too much?

I think that is the concern for most scientists.

Google the above and do some research rather than believe what they feed you.

If you don't even understand the CO2 your discussing, your the one who needs to do research.

edit on 25-7-2012 by nixie_nox because: (no
reason given)

thank you THANK YOU for explaining the difference regarding CO2. it might just be too much science for some to understand though. i swear
that the "it's a hoax!!" people just don't actually understand a lot about science and so they decide it must be made up because it doesn't make
sense with what they want to understand. like the earth being round vs. it being flat.

Big deal. Like the article says, it happens regularly every 150 years or so.
Did the world end 150 years ago?
Apparently not.
In case you hadn't noticed, the place is called GREENLAND.
During the Viking settlement years (350 or so), the place had areas of grassland and fertile farmland.
The whole super-storm-day-after-tomorrow scenario was dreamed up by Whitley Strieber....hardly someone I would recognise as a climate expert.
Hollywood is not what one should be looking towards as a guide to the future.
They are in the business of creating fantasy for money.
Much like the AGW crowd...

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.